drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:These populist feelings are certainly the majority in this country as well. Not to go all Glenn Beck and worship at the alter at our founding fathers, but it does seem like a break from some of our traditions. What drives this sentiment (beyond the recent bailouts of course), and was it present 200 years ago? Did early Americans hate the rich?

a couple of thoughts:

I have no objective information to base it on, but I'd suggest that hate is probably the least-apt descriptor of popular sentiment among a selection that includes mistrust, fear, & hate;

and

Social history - to oversimplify, a history told by those who aren't the rich, or their apologists - is relatively newly-hatched as a mode of historicizing. It costs money to build a defense of past actions. Until relatively recently - even nowadays, on reflection - only a narrow, disproportionately well-heeled slice of the population has had its hands on the historical pen.

Certainly, the sources are there--outside of the South, literacy was widespread and even print sources are very diverse. And social history has been around for awhile. Not to mention all kinds of interesting intellectual origins of the American founding have been debated since at least the fifties. Louis Hartz, JGA Pocock, Bernard Bailyn, Carl Becker, among hundreds of historians have looked at this stuff.

Gordon Wood's The American Revolution is a good start. In short, there's a lot of evidence that ordinary early Americans weren't terribly fond of rich people, especially those in finance. This of course is an old prejudice that goes back to at least the time of Christ but probably goes back even further than that.

I've been on the wealthier side of the spectrum for most of my life, but I can't stand when rich people cry and try to source the founding fathers. At the risk of sounding like PTK, since the wealthy elites have the majority of political power it only makes sense for them to shoulder their fair share of the burden during the crisis. Chances are they have much more to do with the causes than the lady making 30,000 a year working in a factory.

TenuredVulture wrote:Certainly, the sources are there--outside of the South, literacy was widespread and even print sources are very diverse. And social history has been around for awhile. Not to mention all kinds of interesting intellectual origins of the American founding have been debated since at least the fifties. Louis Hartz, JGA Pocock, Bernard Bailyn, Carl Becker, among hundreds of historians have looked at this stuff.

Gordon Wood's The American Revolution is a good start. In short, there's a lot of evidence that ordinary early Americans weren't terribly fond of rich people, especially those in finance. This of course is an old prejudice that goes back to at least the time of Christ but probably goes back even further than that.

re: social history being around for awhile, I was thinking of a broader swath of time - say, since those french cavemen started painting bulls on cave walls. But who knows, maybe when they put down their paintpots they were treated like any other knuckledragger in their tribe. The 1950s are 1/2 hour ago in that context.

And I'm not sure you've made the case that hate, rather than mistrust or fear, has been the defining sentiment toward the better-off.

I think Wiener is the guy who, in a speech a while back, said that whatever legislation being debated at the time was like "stacking a second coffin on top of the already existing coffin of..." which was perhaps the most ridiculous analogy I'd ever heard. I've been trying since then to get myself into a situation where quoting it would be apropos. Still waiting.

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Certainly, the sources are there--outside of the South, literacy was widespread and even print sources are very diverse. And social history has been around for awhile. Not to mention all kinds of interesting intellectual origins of the American founding have been debated since at least the fifties. Louis Hartz, JGA Pocock, Bernard Bailyn, Carl Becker, among hundreds of historians have looked at this stuff.

Gordon Wood's The American Revolution is a good start. In short, there's a lot of evidence that ordinary early Americans weren't terribly fond of rich people, especially those in finance. This of course is an old prejudice that goes back to at least the time of Christ but probably goes back even further than that.

re: social history being around for awhile, I was thinking of a broader swath of time - say, since those french cavemen started painting bulls on cave walls. But who knows, maybe when they put down their paintpots they were treated like any other knuckledragger in their tribe. The 1950s are 1/2 hour ago in that context.

And I'm not sure you've made the case that hate, rather than mistrust or fear, has been the defining sentiment toward the better-off.

I'm not really making much of a case for anything at all. Just pointing out that tensions based on differences in economic resources were pretty common in eighteenth c. America. Shay's rebellion comes pretty close to expression of hatred though.

By the way, I suppose everyone should also read A History of the US Political System, ed. by Richard Harris and Dan Tichenor. Not much social history, but nice essays on lots of early America stuff and a good selection of historic documents. ABC-CLIO published it, and it can be yours for the low price of $295. http://www.amazon.com/History-U-S-Polit ... 1851097139

(It's 3 volumes!)

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I've been on the wealthier side of the spectrum for most of my life, but I can't stand when rich people cry and try to source the founding fathers. At the risk of sounding like PTK, since the wealthy elites have the majority of political power it only makes sense for them to shoulder their fair share of the burden during the crisis. Chances are they have much more to do with the causes than the lady making 30,000 a year working in a factory.

I see your point in a general sense, and I was mainly trying to tie in my thoughts on the Greek riots into generalities. The union leaders in Greece are demanding that the rich "fix" the budget gaps, and are asserting that the concessions being asked of the unions and public workers are ourageous. I quoted the requested concessions, which seem reasonable in a fiscal crisis (freezing of salaries, closing of tax loopholes, etc), when combined with increased taxes on the rich. The "tone" of the striking and rioting suggests that the demands are otherwise, which I don't quite understand.

"There is an all-out war against public servants." Said by the union leader.

Edit: And to address the highlighted portion... the reason that a country or company is in financial straights is because it spends too much for how much it brings in. So it can either try to raise more revenue, or reduce costs. Public sector workers will always prefer the former route, ALWAYS, whether it makes sense in a given situation or not. My point is that it may not be the 30k public sector's fault for anything, but that doesn't mean that he's entitled to regular raises and a permanent job. Structural fiscal deficits may be caused by the hiring of redundant workers (note: this obviously can apply to private companies as well as gov'ts), and elimination of these structural problems should be considered. It's not Brandon Lyon's fault that Ed Wade decided to overpay for his services, and if Lyon's contract wasn't guaranteed, then they could consider cutting his compensation.

Yeah I was just talking in a general sense, I definitely don't think that is all that unfair. Hell, it's kind of happening in New Jersey right now and I'm OK with it.

Here's an article I'm posting just for the pieces of quoted genius. It's sort of politic-y:

Bribes Let Tomato Vendor Sell Tainted Food wrote:In addition, prosecutors say that for years, SK Foods shipped its customers millions of pounds of bulk tomato paste and puree that fell short of basic quality standards — with falsified documentation to mask the problems. Often that meant mold counts so high the sale should have been prohibited under federal law; at other times it involved breaching specifications in the sales contracts, such as acidity levels or the age of the product.

The scope of the tainted shipments was much broader than the bribery scheme, touching more than 55 companies. In some cases, companies detected problems and sent the products back — but in many cases, according to prosecutors, they did not, and the tainted ingredients wound up in food sold to consumers.

Prosecutors said that no one was sickened by the mold-tainted products and that they were not a health risk.

So they're not a health risk? So what is the point of the federal law that they broke, if it's not protecting us from health risks?

According to court papers, Mr. Rahal recounted how he would drop a $100 bill on the floor, then bend to pick it up, saying: “You must have dropped this. Is it yours?” If the person said yes, Mr. Rahal considered him receptive.

Smooth. Real smooth.

“As a consumer I wouldn’t want to have moldy tomatoes in my tomato ketchup or my tomato products,” Dr. Doyle said.

It wouldn't be responsible reporting if we didn't have Captain Obvious to state his preferences for non-moldy foods.

Werthless wrote:

Prosecutors said that no one was sickened by the mold-tainted products and that they were not a health risk.

So they're not a health risk? So what is the point of the federal law that they broke, if it's not protecting us from health risks?

I'm reluctant to suggest a reporter's got the facts down right, but I read this as saying no one in this case was sickened, and that the products were not a health risk now, presumably since they've pulled the suspect goods off shelves.

"No one needs to change their tomato buying practices in the future, since you guys have already eaten all the tainted stuff."

Little do they know I have 2-year-old bottles of ketchup in the back of my fridge.

Werthless wrote:Little do they know I have 2-year-old bottles of ketchup in the back of my fridge.

I have an airtight container of fermented black beans from the GHW Bush administration back there. Really, I'm positive they're still edible. Really.

Werthless, you've raised a subject worthy of its own thread....

Werthless wrote:

Prosecutors said that no one was sickened by the mold-tainted products and that they were not a health risk.

So they're not a health risk?

Health risk? Hell, they make their own penicillin

What was everybody's overall impression of the Blair (Witch) House Summit? I only saw a bit of it but overall it seemed like a big waste of time. It seemed like the GOP members made several good points but were generally campaigning for the next election cycle. The Dems seemed content to let the GOP members sound like they were still trying to gum up the works with their insistence to start the process over. Obama seemed like he was on his game again; IMHO, it is obvious that he either prepares for these meetings really well or he is neck deep in this policy development because he knows the facts and numbers with instant recall.

traderdave wrote:What was everybody's overall impression of the Blair (Witch) House Summit? I only saw a bit of it but overall it seemed like a big waste of time. It seemed like the GOP members made several good points but were generally campaigning for the next election cycle. The Dems seemed content to let the GOP members sound like they were still trying to gum up the works with their insistence to start the process over. Obama seemed like he was on his game again; IMHO, it is obvious that he either prepares for these meetings really well or he is neck deep in this policy development because he knows the facts and numbers with instant recall.

There are a few 'live blogging' snippets in the "Single Payer?" thread, mingled with the usual snarky remarks, critiques of the congressional staffers' physical attributes, etc.

Basically you have a good sense of it. Obama demonstrated his leaderiousity; Sen. Paul Ryan (R-WI) came off like that cracked-voice character from Welcome Back Kotter; McCain took a Barry elbow to the throat; and Boehner demonstrated why he's discounted by Dems & Reps alike. Health was not reformed; BarryCo wiped their asses with the Reps' clean sheets of paper.

Here's a way for politicians to potentially balance the budget:

Win the lottery!

Werthless wrote:Here's a way for politicians to potentially balance the budget:

Win the lottery!

Well fuck my butt.

We're doomed.

Wow. Does anyone want to bet that that I can prove that Barack Obama was born in Kenya? I should be able to provide suitable evidence. A third party can arbitrate.

please share

Obama's News Feed

http://www.slate.com/id/2245175/

drsmooth wrote:Obama demonstrated his leaderiousity;

In all seriousness, being time keeper is the antithesis of leaderiousity. I've never been in any context where an important person took that role.